Not many people care, I certainly don't. What I do care about is newspapers having their employees follow the rich and famous for the sole reason of maximising profits, without giving consideration to the effect it'll have on that person & his/her family. It's not news and it's only of interest to those with a below-average IQ.
Giggs has made ten's of millions of pounds from sponsors portraying a squeaky clean image to the public. They do not go around and pick sexually irresponsible celebrities to help market their products. The sponsors have been embarrassed by their choice and may drop him. So, do you think that the investigators have done a good job or should they have shu-up? Papers and media make celebrities and they must report the good, otherwise we would not have a sponsors in the pot who want to make money from the association. So, why shouldn't the papers/media who advertise their products? They are also hoodwinked in to believing that a celebrity is squeaky clean. But when they're not then bingo...they have a story!!!